Tabletop Roleplaying Games (D&D, Pathfinder, CoC, ETC.)

[Corn Flakes]

I'd offer 8 + Int mod, and here's why:

The fighter already has a tough time keeping parity in combat. But his uselessness outside of combat is just insulting. Granting him the same ranks as the rogue at least moves him into parity with that class.

Way back in 3.5e my longest-running group used 5 + Int Mod, but all skills were bought for 1 point. The difference between cross-class and class skills was their cap: cross-class skills only went up to up to your character level + 1, while Class skills went up to character level + 6. It worked pretty well and leveling up was simple.

I think we had Rogues getting 6 + Int mod, but I don't remember if we just proposed it or actually adopted that rule. It has been a while..

 

[Ghostse]

Skills have been my special hell for 3E and PF1 for years. As far as I'm concerned, 3E's designers can eat a bag of dicks, and Paizo can have the leftovers. Huge list of skills; never, ever enough skill ranks unless you run something like a rogue or PF1's investigator.

I appreciate what 3.5 was tryng to do, which was provide a mechanism to model a wide range of character types and to allow genre-specific/world-specific customizations. The major stumlbing block is its virtually impossible to balance, made worse by the 3.5 trying to set static DCs for actions that don't properly take into account counter actions; things that 3.5 treats linearly should be exponential/logarithmic.

My ideal sytem would be some sort of heirarchy. Points you spend in general categories enhance specific skills, ranks in specific skills give greater advantage than generalities. I would also add that skills shouldn't just be INT based and shouldn't be granted at level up, it should be granted for downtime actions or quest actions but that's going to far into the weeds.

If only 4e was developed a bit more in the skill/ downtime field…

4e's decision I can respect just from a "shut up and play" perspective, adn that 4e is more about fantasy super heroes than Tolkienian ones.
Skill challenges/ritual casting DCs provide better depth than people give them credit for. The issue is they are an extreme overcorrection from 3.5's "hope you realize you've stumbled into an important situation and get the plot point you supposed to get!".
I used to hate skill challenges until I read a blog about Call of Cthulhu and that mysteries/investigations should not be to see if the players succeed or fail; they should always succeed. The investigation should be about determining the level of success and the cost of that success, and when you view Skill Challenges through that lens they become much more useful.
I have opinions on this especially since it is very anti-B/X, but I feel the expected GM mentality 3.5 material puts forward is too much "hope you got the right combo of skills and rolls, fucknuts!".

(To expand a little more but not too much: B/X adventures tend to be written with multiple ways for the party to be drawn along the adventure regardless of their actions - missing a key item only makes things more difficult on the party, and encourages re-investigation should it be needed. If you don't bring the French Tickler of the Grand Abbotess with you to fight the lich, either you can't open the door to the phylactery and the party sees multiple hints about what they are missing, or you fight the lich being unable to counter his Bad Touch.
3.5 adventures seem to be written for "The party discovers the name of the shadowy figure running the criminal enterprise at the docks by interrogating the theif they caught on a 12+ intimidate check. It is also written on the wall of the orphanage's outhouse" but the adventure being written such the party needs to find out who they are looking for without much consideration given for "What if the party fucks up their roll and also misses your clever hints to take a massive shit when visiting the orphans, or just doesn't visit the orphanage?"
edit: Or if the party discovers some information before they would otherwise do so via lucky roll, unexpected use of magic/magical item, suddenly the adventure is fast forwarded but potentially without the party having the needed other bits. Spells like Talk to Dead make murder mysteries trivial to solve.)

 

[Judge Dredd]

My ideal sytem would be some sort of heirarchy. Points you spend in general categories enhance specific skills, ranks in specific skills give greater advantage than generalities.

I homebrewed something like this for Savage Worlds, though the campaign didn't last long enough to test it.

(in SW, skills are untrained, then measured from d4-d12, higher is better. d6 being "average person" or "average person with some training")
I didn't like how, for a combat game, putting points into "shooting" made you better at everything, but splitting it up meant that a marksman with a revolver picked up a rifle and didnt know which end the bullets come out.

So I made it that shooting would take you to d8. To get your d10, that's when you specializations like rifles, pistols, etc. came in. I even considered making the d12 an individual weapon. But, as said, the campaign didn't last long enough for people to get above d8.

---

Update of sorts on Neon Odyssey.

There's free playtest material available. Will give it a skim.
Edit: That didn't take long. There's little done to 5e to make it sci-fi. No special rules for guns. They just work like crossbows but with many shots between reloads.
The ship combat is ripped straight from Starfinder with barely any change. The main difference seems to be you takes your whole turn then the enemy does their whole turn, instead of the simultaneous turns of Starfinder.

There's another 5e sci-fi game called Dark Matter. No idea how it is.
On it's face it's less gay.

but then suddenly-

 

[Capsaicin Addict]

My ideal sytem would be some sort of heirarchy. Points you spend in general categories enhance specific skills, ranks in specific skills give greater advantage than generalities. I would also add that skills shouldn't just be INT based and shouldn't be granted at level up, it should be granted for downtime actions or quest actions but that's going to far into the weeds.

That makes me think of PF2 and how training in skills gives you access to abilities, while taking skill feats either grants additional abilities or modifies existing ones.

 

[CrunkLord420]

That didn't take long. There's little done to 5e to make it sci-fi. No special rules for guns. They just work like crossbows but with many shots between reloads.

I mean, they said 5e, right? Not sure how else you'd do it.

I don't know why people need a special book, complete with ultra-generic setting, to re-iterate the rules they already know. Better give them MILLIONS OF DOLLARS to find out.

I'd ask how they handle cybernetics but I don't really care. It's not that deep. It's just a passive trait most of the time. You could make this stuff up on your own.

Spoiler: This singular image makes more excited for a setting than 95% of TTRPG slop

 

[KiwiFuzz2]

Those skellies are not anatomically accurate and I object.

 

[Rapier Ape]

So on the subject of 3.5, fighters and lack of skills have you all looked into the DMG 2?
There's a few methods for alt character classes.
One section contains 3 base classes.
Warrior, Specialist and Magic user.
It breaks down the class abilities for the OG classes via feat distribution. Ranger, barbarian, paladin abilities etc.
One different aspect of it is that when you pick your starting class you actually select what your class abilities are going to be.

 

[Adamska]

I'd offer 8 + Int mod, and here's why:

The fighter already has a tough time keeping parity in combat. But his uselessness outside of combat is just insulting. Granting him the same ranks as the rogue at least moves him into parity with that class.

In fairness, I wouldn't mind this modification, mainly because in second edition the fighter was comparable to the rogue in terms of skills they could pick up.

It still wouldn't solve the fact that it's just outdone in the damage department by basically everything, and weapon specialization doesn't save it. But it would give some nice out of combat utility and actually aid in role play.

Also, I'm kind of a demented person and that just enjoys the 3.5 skill mechanics. But then I always like having a lot of skills. It's why I tended to play utility classes so much.

 

[Sleazy Car Salesman]

So on the subject of 3.5, fighters and lack of skills have you all looked into the DMG 2?

When there's approximately a million-billion books for a single system (most of which aren't that good) I can't be bothered to read every one.

 

[MazonLabs Recruitment Rep]

I mean, they said 5e, right? Not sure how else you'd do it.

I don't know why people need a special book, complete with ultra-generic setting, to re-iterate the rules they already know. Better give them MILLIONS OF DOLLARS to find out.

I'd ask how they handle cybernetics but I don't really care. It's not that deep. It's just a passive trait most of the time. You could make this stuff up on your own.

Spoiler: This singular image makes more excited for a setting than 95% of TTRPG slop

View attachment 8988029

Based and Heavy Metal coded.

 

[Judge Dredd]

I mean, they said 5e, right? Not sure how else you'd do it.

Crossbows and bows and ranged spells work well enough in a fantasy game. But in a modern or sci-fi game where guns are available, it feels off to dump round after round into some guy doing chip damage until he falls over. Especially if both sides are using guns, and are standing in the open. The +2 from cover isn't enough to risk being in sub optimal range or risk flanking moves. The lack of suppression also makes flanking unfeasible unless you're really fast.

A gun isn't a crossbow where you're shooting 1 bolt every 5 seconds. Either you're lining up a shot, or dumping a magazine. Usually something in between. I can forgive the abstraction for gunslinger classes because they're usually using black powder weapons, lever action, or revolvers at best.

I've considered rules like automatic weapons have advantage against people in the open. Or maybe doing tripe damage (3d8 instead of d. Ammo, if tracked, should also be measured in bursts. Maybe give weapons a suppression or overwatch ability to get a free shot on a guy if he moves.

Just something other than doing a find-replace "crossbow" for "rifle".

I'd ask how they handle cybernetics but I don't really care.

That's good, because there aren't any.

You could make this stuff up on your own.

But I shouldn't have to. That's like giving someone a dictionary and claiming it contains every story ever written.

 

[Corn Flakes]

Crossbows and bows and ranged spells work well enough in a fantasy game. But in a modern or sci-fi game where guns are available, it feels off to dump round after round into some guy doing chip damage until he falls over. Especially if both sides are using guns, and are standing in the open. The +2 from cover isn't enough to risk being in sub optimal range or risk flanking moves. The lack of suppression also makes flanking unfeasible unless you're really fast.

A gun isn't a crossbow where you're shooting 1 bolt every 5 seconds. Either you're lining up a shot, or dumping a magazine. Usually something in between. I can forgive the abstraction for gunslinger classes because they're usually using black powder weapons, lever action, or revolvers at best.

I've considered rules like automatic weapons have advantage against people in the open. Or maybe doing tripe damage (3d8 instead of d. Ammo, if tracked, should also be measured in bursts. Maybe give weapons a suppression or overwatch ability to get a free shot on a guy if he moves.

Just something other than doing a find-replace "crossbow" for "rifle".

You don't have to increase damage, you have to reduce health pools. HP isn't just raw physical bulk, it's also the ability to turn deadly injuries into grazes. A 10 damage hit on someone with more than 10 HP is a close shave, a 10 damage hit on someone with 9 HP is a knockout.

There's a reason most modern, sci-fi and cyberpunk games (the kind of stuff where guns see a lot of focus) feature very squishy characters. Even pulp stuff like Savage World plays with narrative reasons for avoiding/minimizing damage when you spend bennies. 1d10 guns become considerably more dangerous when your d20 characters have only their Constitution score + Class Die for HP from levels 1 to 20. Tweak the cover rules so any attacks against a creature that's actively taking cover behind an object large enough to conceal them from the point of view of the shooter strike and deal damage to the object, with natural 20s hitting the character as normal, and there you go. A simple cover system where enough firepower can chew through cover, and lucky shots can still hit someone cowering behind a pillar.

D&D isn't made for modern gunfights. Characters, even back in BX*, are considerably tougher than normal people even at level 1. So if you want to run that kind of game on that kind of flavor of d20, you have to make everybody a lot more fragile to make it work, and have gunfights being more about ambushes and flanking than just tanking hits.

* Although I think in BX you'd have being hit by a gun being a Save vs. Death situation if you wanted to be really gritty about it.

 

[Sleazy Car Salesman]

There's a reason most modern, sci-fi and cyberpunk games (the kind of stuff where guns see a lot of focus) feature very squishy characters. Even pulp stuff like Savage World plays with narrative reasons for avoiding/minimizing damage when you spend bennies. 1d10 guns become considerably more dangerous when your d20 characters have only their Constitution score + Class Die for HP from levels 1 to 20. Tweak the cover rules so any attacks against a creature that's actively taking cover behind an object large enough to conceal them from the point of view of the shooter strike and deal damage to the object, with natural 20s hitting the character as normal, and there you go. A simple cover system where enough firepower can chew through cover, and lucky shots can still hit someone cowering behind a pillar.

I hate to be that guy but simply lifting and tweaking the combat rules from Dark Heresy makes for a very decent framework to hang your sci-fi shooter onto.

 

[LovisXVI]

I hate to be that guy but simply lifting and tweaking the combat rules from Dark Heresy makes for a very decent framework to hang your sci-fi shooter onto.

There is a reason why /tg/ during the get shit done era of the board used Dark Heresy as the basis for practically every system they made. From UESRPG to Adeptus Evangelion.

 

[Sleazy Car Salesman]

There is a reason why /tg/ during the get shit done era of the board used Dark Heresy as the basis for practically every system they made. From UESRPG to Adeptus Evangelion.

D100 roll under the way that DH does it is just such an Easy Mode button for game design for the sheer weight that it takes off of the DM for balancing. Everything just being on the character sheet is so nice.

 

[Corn Flakes]

I hate to be that guy but simply lifting and tweaking the combat rules from Dark Heresy makes for a very decent framework to hang your sci-fi shooter onto.

Definitely. This was just me dumping some autism on how you could make a D&D-derived system work for modern campaigns without the retardation that was d20 modern. I don't know, maybe there's someone out there who's allergic to d100 roll-under or just wants a really simple game with railroaded class progression, and the rules I proposed would be useful for that.

Think of it as a case study in "design/tweak your game system for the kind of game you want to run on it", I guess. You can run sci-fi on a 5e-like system, but you can't just reskin the classes and have everything else be the same, you need to make fundamental changes to the system to make it fit. Those changes aren't particularly difficult to make, though, and the fact WotC isn't remixing the core D&D system into other genres even though there's clearly great demand for them shows to me how out of touch they are.

 

[Sleazy Car Salesman]

Those changes aren't particularly difficult to make, though, and the fact WotC isn't remixing the core D&D system into other genres even though there's clearly great demand for them shows to me how out of touch they are.

It's especially wild considering how half baked 5e really is that they wouldn't use it as the basis for a more fleshed out system. But then again WoTC is probably just chasing the "Mass Market Appeal" dragon to the point where they refuse to make anything even remotely niche.

 

[Imperial Citizen]

Dice Scum reviews Lancer tonight. Let's see if we can teach our resident salt golem to enjoy the rules of a more minis focused/tactical combat game.

 

[Adamska]

Dice Scum reviews Lancer tonight. Let's see if we can teach our resident salt golem to enjoy the rules of a more minis focused/tactical combat game.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=RjsiLjGYGXU

It isn't going to work specifically because I just intrinsically don't fuck with the setting. Something about Mechs and Eldritch horror just clashes with my tastes.

I also just think the game is busted and overrated tbh, given you need to tweak and ignore the base rules to get anything out of it.

 

[~ R U S T M A R E ~]

That makes me think of PF2 and how training in skills gives you access to abilities, while taking skill feats either grants additional abilities or modifies existing ones.

My biggest peeve is the billions of feats, and clases, and how every single class becomes a spellcaster with specific kits, etc...
As I got older, I started to enjoy more freeform or simpler systems. I'm also designing my own, based on dice pools, but that's another story.


What really woke me up to the fact I got burnt out on PF1 and 3.5 was the fact I discovered Mork Borg, and the entire indie RPG scene, that actually prioritized fun over rules.